CONSUMER PROTECTION COUNCIL Vs. SURESHBHAI S PATEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this complaint, relief by way of rectification or removal of defects as pointed out by the valuer or to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.16,53,200 to the apartment owners to enable them to rectify the defective works as per the technical-cum-valuation report dated 28.3.1998 given by approved registered valuer M/s. M. C. Dalal and Company and to pay compensation in the sum of Rs.2,00,000 on the head of mental agony, hardship, inconvenience and expenses etc. and to pay cost in the sum of Rs.25,000 on following brief allegations of facts.

(2.) Complainant No.1 is a voluntary consumer organisation and complainant Nos.2 and 3 have described themselves as Secretary of Bore Committee and Managing Committee member of the Bore Committee of Karnavati (Ranip) Co-op. Housing Society Limited.1st two opponents and opponent No.4 have been described as partners of Hariom Corporation, Organiser-cum-Builder of housing society. Opponent No.5 has been described as Chairman as also Organiser-cum-builder of Karnavati (Ranip) Co-op. Hsg. Society. Opponent No.3 has been deleted from the complaint.

(3.) It has been alleged that the opponents committed unfair trade practice and have been deficient in rendition of service as organiser, developer and builder of the aforesaid housing society. They had given pamphlet showing brief outline of type of development and construction as also various materials to be used in the construction of the tenements in question as per Annexure-I which is a one page specification. Construction was carried out and possession was handed over to the enrolled members of the society with possession letter of a common format signed by the allottees under duress and compulsion inasmuch as if such possession letters were not signed, handing over of possession would be delayed. According to the complainants full payments were made to the opponents. The complainants, therefore, sent letter dated 17.7.1995 and also letter dated 29.8.1997 with copy endorsed to the District Registrar of Co-op. Societies informing opponent No.5 that the documents alleged to have been verified by the allottees were in fact not verified and the conditions regarding construction stated to have been accepted have not been in fact accepted and the letter of possession issued by the allottees would not be binding to the complainants. The complainants have alleged that there are numerous defects in the construction work and they have obtained the valuation report as stated above. They have also asserted that the opponents collected Rs.15,000 in excess from each of the allottees. They have narrated the details of the valuation report in their complaint. They have also asserted that the opponents have not followed certain conditions contained in the N. A. permission issued by the District Collector, Ahmedabad. The complainants have also been duped by providing a small common plot portion of which has been unlawfully misused by opponents for construction of two more row-houses though not provided in the plan approved by Ahmedabad Urban Development Authority (AUDA ).